[PATCH v3 06/17] riscv: Fix extension subset checking

[Charlie Jenkins]

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 04:21:05PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 11:13:40AM -0400, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 03:51:54PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 04:22:02PM +0200, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> > > > Hi Charlie,
> > > > 
> > > > On 21/04/2024 03:04, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
> > > > > This loop is supposed to check if ext->subset_ext_ids[j] is valid, rather
> > > > > than if ext->subset_ext_ids[i] is valid, before setting the extension
> > > > > id ext->subset_ext_ids[j] in isainfo->isa.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Charlie Jenkins <charlie at rivosinc.com>
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley at microchip.com>
> > > > > Fixes: 0d8295ed975b ("riscv: add ISA extension parsing for scalar crypto")
> > > > > ---
> > > > >   arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c | 2 +-
> > > > >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > > > > index 48874aac4871..b537731cadef 100644
> > > > > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > > > > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cpufeature.c
> > > > > @@ -609,7 +609,7 @@ static int __init riscv_fill_hwcap_from_ext_list(unsigned long *isa2hwcap)
> > > > >   			if (ext->subset_ext_size) {
> > > > >   				for (int j = 0; j < ext->subset_ext_size; j++) {
> > > > > -					if (riscv_isa_extension_check(ext->subset_ext_ids[i]))
> > > > > +					if (riscv_isa_extension_check(ext->subset_ext_ids[j]))
> > > > >   						set_bit(ext->subset_ext_ids[j], isainfo->isa);
> > > > >   				}
> > > > >   			}
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I think this should go into -fixes, let's check with Palmer if he wants to
> > > > take this patch only or if you should send the patch on its own.
> > > 
> > > I think splitting out this and patch 1 into a new series targeting fixes
> > > would probably make things clearer?
> > 
> > Okay I can do that. I will give it a bit more time before I send this
> > series split into two to allow time for the rest of the patches to
> > gather comments so I avoid sending too many duplicate patches.
> 
> Ye, I do hope to get back to this series later in the week when I have
> time to actually read through all of the patches in detail.
> 
> However, you wouldn't have to resend both parts of the series - you can
> just split out the fixes portion and send that, leaving the rest of the
> series sitting on the list to gather comments.

Oh cool, I will send those two patches out in their own series then.

- Charlie